The Murdoch Media - the Modern Mafia?

Dig that alliteration, the News of the World's been caught again! And this time it's actually gone for some real criminal intent!

The only thing which outrages the public more than a, to quote the Sun, "serial child-sex beast" is a serial child-sex beast's victim's phone being hacked into by seedy a private investigator working for a multinational media corporation. That's the big difference here. The public has no problem with the personal abuse of "celebrities" or the rich and famous. I don't think it's justified, but everyone else apparently does and, as the tabloid and lifestyle mags show, there's a real sadist culture when it comes to unpleasant tales of the rich and famous. As such, when the phone-hacking of the likes of Hugh Grant, Sienna Miller and the Royal Family came to light, no-one really went mad about it since they're, somehow, getting their just desserts for having the nerve to be well-known. This is another issue to discuss, but the point is that now that the phone-hacking centred on a dear, sweet, innocent, cute, etc. member of the public who was murdered by a serial child-sex beast (that could be such a great B-movie title), the outrage will really come to the fore...she doesn't deserve it like the rest of those rich scum!

Well, it's not hard to be outraged - it's pretty textbook on the outrage front, even if you don't normally care about these kinds of functionalist histrionics. There's absolutely no defence for the NOTW in this case, they've gone and perverted the course of justice and misled the police and prolonged and manipulated a murder case. Someone should go to jail.

Well, Glenn Mulcaire's already gone down for six months. This is pretty much irrelevant, since he's just a tool of the trade. Clive Goodman went down for four months. Meh. James Weatherup was arrested, but nothing seems to have come of that. And that's it. These are just News International's vestigial tails, lackeys who can be thrown into the firing line when they're asked for blood. Otherwise, no-one of any real power has been seen with their head on the block and it's a scam.

Like I said in the title, they've become like a crime syndicate. They can send out their mugs to do their dirty deals and get fresh victims and then toss them off as fall guys and cover their tracks so no-one can find the route back to the Godfather, Murdoch, or his consigliere, Rebekah Wade.

The Press Complaints Commission and its Tory peer head, Peta Jane Buscombe, have been utterly impotent. It has so far failed to do a single thing, beyond issuing lame, unthreatening, powerless "edicts" and according to the Daily Politics, Buscombe is today, "not happy". Oooh, I'll bet Wade's just shaking in her polo boots...David "Mr. Rebekah Wade" Cameron has been irrelevant, as has Justin Hunt who's giving Murdoch another pat on the back by allowing his buying of BSkyB to go ahead.

Perhaps the Guardian and the Independent have been the only ones to really gain any boost to their reputation out of this out of this - it's hardly surprising that they've been jumping at the opportunity to tear down another wall of the Murdoch empire, but on top of that it's really allowed them to take the moral highground and with good reason. After all, neither paper has had to resort to illegal tactics to get the dish and it's not as though their sales are slumping and they're very keen to emphasise this. I think it's a good thing, because - at least for the time being - it proves that a paper and its journalists can maintain an ethical compass, that it's not a matter of making a fast buck by any means necessary.

Personal morality should not be dismissed. It is not enough to say that the public want it and therefore anything goes or that the press are just part of one big rat race (with the cheese being sales and mild, totally ineffectual electric shocks being the PCC) and so journalists need to resort to dirtier and more suspect tactics in order beat the competition.

Still, the big question here is that if the the Press Complaints Commission, self-regulation and personal ethics can't prevent the press undermining the law and society, then what can be done. How about statuatory regulation? Then we let the politicians decide what the media can and can't print?

Like the bankers, the media essentially hold the government at ransom - but they also hold liberals and progressives at ransom, too. While none of us would mind if the bankers had their every move followed and kept in line by white-collar cops, the thought of state-regulated media is a far more dangerous and risky notion; no matter how much we rant and rave at the government, if they turn around and say, "well, do you want us to sort it out, then?", we all just cringe and say, "Um, actually, uh..." If we do that, then it's a blanket thrown on all the news media, not just the corrupt media like News International and that's a very scary prospect.

So what can we do? We could all stop buying the Times, the Sun, the NOTW, stop watching Fox, stop reading the Sunday Times, the Wall Street Journal, Caribbean Life, Papua New Guinea Post-Courier...etc. And so force Murdoch into bankrupcy! All we need is to convince about 3 billion people to do that and there would no problem!

Still, the Milly Dowler case is important - by perverting the course of justice, there is a straightforward legal case to bring against the people in power and so Murdoch might not be untouchable if it can somehow be proved that he was consciously in on it. This is all that needs to be lobbied for - genuine legal reaction to the breaking of the law. This can't just be a matter of outrage from the government, this isn't just a case of the kind moral disgust that the NOTW and the Sun like to splatter over their pages - this is real, straightforward, unambiguous law-breaking. And Glenn Mulcaire was hired to do this and so those who hired him should be punished the highest level to prevent it happening again. But because it's so many levels of authority heading back to the big boss man, with so many levels of "deniability" and so many people good at covering up the evidence that the Godfather might still be pulling the strings for some time. Still, if the consiglieri goes down, I'll be happy...

In spite of everything, there's going to be a lot of public outrage and perhaps a nice bone for Jeremy Hunt to throw would be to stop the BSkyB takeover? Not too much to ask is it? At least it might show that we're a few steps away from being totally at the thrall of the Murdoch Mafia...

Everything You Wanted To Know About Porn (But Were Afraid to Google)

I was thinking about porn the other day (as I often do, in other circumstances) and I realised in my innately smug pragmatic way I genuinely can't decide whether I'm in favour of it or not. There's plenty of good arguments both ways and, unlike many debates, there's no straight party line from the left/right divide. Although many on the right want it banned for it's amorality and obscenity, many on the left want it banned for its exploitativeness and misogyny. It's even more controversial and incendiary than the prostitution debate, because it affects a much, MUCH wider percentage of the population - apparently, more than 70% of men from 18 to 34 visit a pornographic site in a typical month. That's a few more than visit whores, I'd say. Even an 188 year old man like myself has watched more than few skin-flicks (we didn't have this problem back during Reconstruction, I tell ya) and so, really, it's a trade which takes a bit of analysis...

So, here's my schizoid debate on porn - we'll see which one wins out...



Against

The problem with porn is pretty simple – it’s exploitative, misogynistic and sets a pretty bad example for anyone looking for an insight as to “what sex is”.

Let’s get on with exploitative – the porn industry targets the most vulnerable and poor in society. While it could be said there is something of a legitimate porn industry, which I will get onto in a sec, there is also a much larger amateur industry which involves crime, corruption and targets young, impressionable women (and men, don’t forget), often immigrants (both legal and otherwise) who have little money or qualifications and coerces them into engaging in degrading and often harmful behaviour which is broadcast around the web. Much of it is illegal, but much of it is worse because the law protects it – so pornographers and criminals can exploit men and women as much as they want without a single reprimand because it all occurs behind closed doors. Prostitution comes under fire from the police when it takes place on the street, but pornography is left alone because it takes place in a sleazy hotel room, rather than in “decent society”. In this sense, it borders on the same excuse for the lack of police intervention into domestic violence – except that domestic violence is now investigated regularly while amateur pornography, often as damaging if not more so to the individual, is left untouched. And don’t even get me started on child porn!

That’s the amateur porn business – there is a more professional industry which is more controlled and less concerned on the black-market. Top-shelf stuff which is, by comparison, much more respectful to the actors/actresses, at least in financial and legal terms. Still, this is where the very nature of pornography comes under scrutiny – it presents an image of sex which is unrealistic, offensive and often aggressive. As a result, generations have grown up with pornography as their only image of sexual intercourse and this can’t be healthy. Much of the fault lies with schools which are still too cagey and conservative to educate pupils about sex in any explicit terms. Children are therefore forced to turn to porn for an insight; I’m no social psychologist, so I’m not going to make a generalisation here (I was able to watch porn without going mad for one), but it’s certainly not a preferable alternative to genuine education on the subject.

So my bottom line is – maybe there shouldn’t be law to condemn pornography since that would drive it further underground. But I would hope that individuals in society will simply come to realise the harmful effects of porn and stop providing a market for it.

For

Much of the argument for pornography is the same as the one for prostitution – if you make it illegal you force it into illegal circles and it becomes embroiled in corruption, organised crime and sex trafficking. If you keep it legal and monitored, then those involved are protected, respected and receive the compensation they deserve. Prostitution and pornography are the world’s two oldest professions and they will, arguably, always exist as long as people are cagey about having sex with one another. So surely it’s better to pull it out of the underground and into a regulated and legal setting, rather than making it the province of the Mafia?

The other big issue is this – who has the right to tell people what they can and cannot do with their bodies. In particular, the argument against porn seems to always revolve around women and “decency”. In this sense, it’s a throwback to Victorian prudishness and big wire-framed dresses – men telling women to hide their shame. When pornography involves consenting adults, what kind of legal justification can you give? Exhibitionism is not a crime so long as the watching of it is done by choice – and it’s not like you’re forced to watch pornography. So if everyone involved is consenting, then surely it’s suppressing civil liberties to ban it?

Finally – and this is my most tenuous argument – who is to say that pornography has a negative effect on those watching it? And, if it does, who is to say that it is pornography’s fault rather than the sheer ignorance and impressionable stupidity of those watching? I managed to watch pornography for years without becoming a serial rapist so it IS possible. Why is it the fault of the product rather than the buyer? And what about to idea that porn actually produces a catharsis? It has been scientifically shown that regular masturbation is a physically healthy pastime (if you can’t get sex, that is) so why shouldn’t pornography be part of this cathartic aid?

So I believe it is pointless to talking about banning porn – it is here to stay as far as I am concerned and I think the world would be a much more uptight place without it.

Conclusion

Sooo, what's the conclusion, kids? Well, I don't think this one's going to be sorted out soon. If we all had access to regular sex with whoever we felt like, it wouldn't be an issue, but I can't see that being the case any time soon and, to be honest, that would throw up as many problems as it causes. So I can't see porn going away soon and, with the internet getting bigger and bigger, it's just going to push further into the mainstream.

I say, for now, just hang loose and see what happens!